本文的主要目的是就《奧義書》中的大梵觀念與體現於先秦儒、道哲學中的道的觀念之間的同異進行理論上的比較與哲學闡釋。在《奧義書》中，大梵是太初之唯一存在者，也是其自身意志的最初確斷者，一切世界現象正是由其意志的自我肯定而產生的，因此現象的本質即是大梵之意志的表象，由此而產生 摩耶的觀念。自我被認為即是大梵本身，自我的尋求則是《奧義書》的一個普遍主題。而世界現象及其在時空中的流變則是在終極實在的終極還原中需要被消解的。變化被視為永恆的反面。作為一切現象之終極實在，大梵既體現為一切名色之最初的與最後的原因，又體現為最高的宇宙精神與生命本質，其自為存在的絕 對性則實際展示於其對於一切現象的普遍滲透、涵攝與包含之中，同時又超越於現象之一切可能的存在方式，它是不可被語言所表述的、超出時空結構與現象之流變的唯一永恆實體。在指出大梵與道的一般共性的同時，作者特別強調了中國哲學中關於道的運動性觀念。如果大梵的永恆性即是其自身超越時空的不變滅 性，那麼道的永恆性恰恰是在變化中被實現出來的。世界現象是道本身之自然運動的直接表呈，而不是意識之流動的表呈。因此在形而上學意義上，中國哲學中不存在關於世界的二重分割。為闡明大梵與道之觀念所主導下的不同文化觀念，作者就三個方面進行了進一步論證，即：1.終極實在之神性、自然性與道德性； 2.本體之自體性相或其自體之實存方式；3.摩耶與現象之真實性。大梵與道為印、中哲學傳統中的核心觀念，正是在其主導之下而導向了兩種不同的神聖人生之境域。

This article focuses on the theoretical comparison and philosophical interpretation between the concepts of Brahman in Upanisads and the concepts fo Tao in Confucianism and Taoism. In Upanisads, Brahman is the only Being in the very beginning of the world and the only determiner of his own volition. The substance of the world of experience is the appearances of the will of Brahman, since all the phenomena of the world come from the self-affirmation of his own volition. Thus we have the concept of Maya. The Atman or the Self is considered identical to Brahman; just for this reason, the pursuing of Atman is the most important topic in Upanisads. On the other hand, the appearances and transience of the world need to be renounced in the process of reducing the Ultimate Reality. Change is taken as the opposite of permanence. As the Ultimate Reality, Brahman is not merely the extreme cause of all the names and forms but also the Supreme Spirit and living self of the universe. The absoluteness of its existence is unfolding in its all-penetration and all-embrance of the phenomena of the world, but as the Ultimate Reality as such, Brahman in the last anlaysis can't be expressed in words, because of its trascendence of the space-time structure and all phenomena. Brahman is the Being itself, and it is permanent. Pointing out the general parallels between Brahman and Tao, the author argues that, in Chinese philosophy, the concept of the movement of Tao has been stressed since the very beginning. If the permanence of Brahman in India is the changelessness that transcends the phenomena and the space-time, the same quality of Tao in China is realized in its own self-caused movement. In Chinese philosophy, the phenomena of the world are the immediate expressions of the movement of Tao itself rather than the expressions of the stream of consciousness of the Ultimate Reality. Therefore, metaphysically, there is no division between the world of transcendence and the world of experience. In order to show the difference between the two, the author's interpretation focuses on the following three aspects: (1) the divinity, the naturalness and the morality of the Ultimate Reality; (2) the existing form of the Being itself; and (3) Maya and the realness of the phenomena. The author concludes that the different elaboration of Brahman and Tao leads the two peoples to the different realms of life divine.